Well thats not what i read a few weeks back, theyve flip flopped on pc exclusivity several times. They said no more pc exclusives, then warhead was announced as bieng pc exclusive and in the same interview they stated that pc exclusivity would depend on how warhead (with the fixed engine) would perform in terms of sales.
Crysis Cost $22M To Make!
- Thread starter AWPC
- Start date
Well thats not what i read a few weeks back, theyve flip flopped on pc exclusivity several times. They said no more pc exclusives, then warhead was announced as bieng pc exclusive and in the same interview they stated that pc exclusivity would depend on how warhead (with the fixed engine) would perform in terms of sales.
That was meant to be a $ not a £..
love it when random nobodies on forums complain about it being poorly optimized when they have absolutely no coding experience and no clue what their talking about whatsoever
if you want poorly optimized look at unpatched arma or quake 4 1.0 multiplayer now those are truly poorly optimized they look horrendous and have sub crysis frame rates
then there's the people who say, well crytek themselves said warhead will be better optimized than crysis, no ****!, practically every sequel in history which has used the same engine has performed better. look at grid and dirt, grid performs way better with 12 cars on screen than dirt ever did with 6, codemasters are bad,lazy coders then yeah?
if you want poorly optimized look at unpatched arma or quake 4 1.0 multiplayer now those are truly poorly optimized they look horrendous and have sub crysis frame rates
then there's the people who say, well crytek themselves said warhead will be better optimized than crysis, no ****!, practically every sequel in history which has used the same engine has performed better. look at grid and dirt, grid performs way better with 12 cars on screen than dirt ever did with 6, codemasters are bad,lazy coders then yeah?
You're clearly missing the point. Crytek basically flat out admitted (or came as close to it as possible) that crysis had flaws with the engine and that the fixes "may" make their way to the original game.
Its not a matter of optomising its a matter of the engine being borked and them doing nothing but damage control claiming the performance was due to nothing more than "mislabeled graphics settings".
Last edited:
So, how do I skip '' manufacturing and distribution'' and ''$27 retail costs''.
It are useless inefficient costs, I don't want to pay for them, I'd gladly pay 20 directly to the publisher and then download it myself... Retailers don't deserve the money because it's rubbish, downloading online would save many costs.
Honestly, I think the engine is amazingly programmed.
People say "look at CoD 4"
Well I am looking at CoD 4 and it looks like a pile of ****. The textures are low res, theres no interactivty with the terrain whatsoever, no physics, the maps are TINY and stuff in the distance is often 2d sprites, theres literally no comparison to Crysis at all where everything is done in real time.
I'm talking purely from a graphical point of view here, not gameplay.
People say "look at CoD 4"
Well I am looking at CoD 4 and it looks like a pile of ****. The textures are low res, theres no interactivty with the terrain whatsoever, no physics, the maps are TINY and stuff in the distance is often 2d sprites, theres literally no comparison to Crysis at all where everything is done in real time.
I'm talking purely from a graphical point of view here, not gameplay.
people expect far too much from crysis, they expect it to run like COD4 only and still look so much better, moving foliage, waves rolling, being shot at, exploding jeeps, trees blown to pieces by grenades all while running about max strengthing everyone. and people need to not talk utter ****, the game doesn't need to run at 60FPS to be totally silky smooth, hell i noticed anything over 26-ish FPS is absolutely 100% flawlessly smooth with no jumping or anything, stop complaining about how its so crap and how crytek are idiots (love to see anybody here do any better) and either A) enjoy the game or B) dislike it but shut the hell up about it, bloody people these days 
people expect far too much from crysis, they expect it to run like COD4 only and still look so much better, moving foliage, waves rolling, being shot at, exploding jeeps, trees blown to pieces by grenades all while running about max strengthing everyone. and people need to not talk utter ****, the game doesn't need to run at 60FPS to be totally silky smooth, hell i noticed anything over 26-ish FPS is absolutely 100% flawlessly smooth with no jumping or anything, stop complaining about how its so crap and how crytek are idiots (love to see anybody here do any better) and either A) enjoy the game or B) dislike it but shut the hell up about it, bloody people these days
Yes and please feel free to totally gloss over the engine issues...
We're consumers\gamers not developers so how does us doing better fall into the argument? When its said and done they have to impress us to get our money and thats what its all about.
Maybe there'll be a discussion when people start posting actual problems with the engine, instead of crying that they don't get 60FPS.
When exactly did i state i wanted 60FPS? The only thing i've complained about in this thread is the fact that my computer EXCEEDS the recommended specs for this game, what is printed on the box, the thing the majority of consumers will rely on when purchasing a game yet it barely (well, failed to, if you include the snow levels) stayed above 20fps during action scenes on medium settings. Your response to this is 'get with the times' which is totally counter productive, other consumers and i shouldn't be expected to have E.S.P. or to go around and check other sources to make sure that the recommended requirements on the back of the box are even remotely accurate and it's not as if we can just magic up the money to overhaul our PCs (especially just for one game). I just feel sorry for the average consumer who just about met the minimum requirements, i bet they had loads of fun trying to get the game running.
I would be perfectly content if crytek had simply moved the recommended requirements down to the minimum, that's fine with me, then i would have expected poor performance, but this wasn't the case.
There were many other issues with the game aside from this if you would rather we discussed them, AI glitches, graphical glitches and my personal favorite was never actually managing the complete the game due to a bug involving not being able to lock onto the final boss, yes i know i could have replayed the entire final level in the hope that the bug wouldn't occur again but frankly i'd had enough.
At present a second-life esque swedish game is planning to upgrade to it later this year, there are several projects in the works but they all have TBA release dates so i couldn't give any idea of when they'll surface.
I remember people criticizing Far Cry for being to resource heavy. Once the next gen hardware came and went it became a solid bargain at €15.
As for Crysis v COD4 in a performance/quality ratio test, I remember the same argument used against COD2 v DOD:S. While DOD:S initially came out on top after time COD2 just looked better and better.
People who run the game on high when their system barely reaches recommended spec aren't very smart.
As for Crysis v COD4 in a performance/quality ratio test, I remember the same argument used against COD2 v DOD:S. While DOD:S initially came out on top after time COD2 just looked better and better.
People who run the game on high when their system barely reaches recommended spec aren't very smart.
I agree 100% on that.
I played it all in very high but for the last bit i did it in high and i didnt have the bug and the endin isnt bad kinda makes me want to play warhed when it comes out
what res you playin it in.IF you play it in a normal res like most common gamers the recommended specs are probly fine
yep i agree with you bee
EDIT HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM SWEAT TEAST OF BEER HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
The back of the box is a rough guide and is not guarantee that the game will run smoothly. If you even bothered to read about Crysis before launch and read it was pushing high end systems, you should have realised a single core CPU with DDR1 RAM wasn't going to cut it.
No one asked you overhaul your PC for one game. There's plenty of other games out there to push your system. A dual core CPU and 2 or 4GB of DDR2 RAM doesn't exactly break the bank these days.
Have we moved onto game bugs now or are we still talking about engine problems? I think we're talking about game bugs.
Opteron 175 is a dual core CPU not single, one which at stock runs at the same speed (2.2Ghz) as a AMD X2 4400, the one stated on the recommended requirements, however i have overclocked it to 2.8Ghz, so it is actually a bit faster than a stock 4400 now. IIRC opterons also have double the cache of a standard X2 but i could be wrong.
I've got 4gig of DDR ram, it states it needs 2gig, i imagine the extra 2gig available will have offset the minor performance difference between DDR1 and 2. It also doesn't state that the 2gb of ram required needs to be DDR2.
My 8800GT 512mb is better than the 8800GTS 320mb stated for the recommended requirements also. So basically my entire system exceeds the recommended requirements stated.
I DID actually bother to read about crysis pre-launch, i read developers saying the game will run on high with a 8800GTS 640mb, i've read that it will run well on a 7800GTX. What i DIDN'T do was wait until after release to see what the game really runs like, i got it on release day. Whats the point in recommended requirements if they're just a rough guideline? As i stated previously the vast majority of consumers will rely on whats on that box, not what internet forums say. Crytek probably knew if they put the real requirements on the box far fewer average PC owners would buy it due to their systems not being up to spec.
I don't see what's so utterly unbearable about criticizing crysis for the specs we were told it would run on being totally incorrect, it seems to have got a couple of peoples backs up though so maybe we should just leave the whole subject alone? (feel free to post a rebuttal if you feel necessary however, I'm not trying to get the last word in or anything)
... When i switched from DirectX9.. to DX10, the extra features and quality was fantastic...I thought we were talking about engine problems? That no one has mentioned still. You brought up some gameplay bugs, but you've still not mentioned anything wrong with the engine.